The United States makes decisions regarding the domestic uses of nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle primarily based economic considerations, domestic political constraints, and environmental impact concerns. Such factors influence U.S. foreign policy decisions as well, but foreign policy decisions are often more strongly determined by national security considerations, including concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

Over the past few years a number of important studies have been executed to identify and define the necessary nuclear energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) infrastructure that must be sustained or developed.

The AMFM Panel has submitted its report "Managing Nuclear
Waste - A Better Idea" to the Secretary. The report contains six
general conclusions and one general recommendation in Chapter
XII. In addition, Chapter X contains 14 specific enhancements
("Key Components of Any Waste Management Structure") that are
recommended for implementation by the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management (OCRWM) or any alternative organization.
This paper lists and discusses the 6 general conclusions, the

All activities which involve the use of radioactive material inevitably result in nuclear waste as a by-product of their operation. Most of the waste produced by such activities as medical diagnosis and therapy, field and laboratory research, and industrial processes is low-level radioactive waste—primarily small amounts of radioactivity in a large volume of matter.

The Disposal Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has
commenced to address a set of issues, all of which bear directly on the central question: “How can the
United States go about establishing one or more disposal sites for high-level nuclear wastes in a manner
and within a timeframe that is technically, socially, economically, and politically acceptable?”
To answer this question and to develop specific recommendations and options for consideration by the

The main objective of this report is to identify conditions which affect public concern (either
increase or decrease) and political acceptance for developing and implementing programmes
for geologic disposal of long-lived radioactive waste. It also looks how citizens and relevant
actors can be associated in the decision making process in such a way that their input is
enriching the outcome towards a more socially robust and sustainable solution. Finally, it
aims at learning from the interaction how to optimise risk management addressing needs and

To advance nuclear energy to meet future energy needs, ten countries—Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have agreed on a framework for international cooperation in research for a future generation of nuclear energy systems, known as Generation IV. The figure below gives an overview of the generations of nuclear energy systems. The first generation was advanced in the 1950s and 60s in the early prototype reactors.

Every year, more than 300 million packages of hazardous material are shipped in the
United States (U.S.). Most of the hazardous material shipped – about 97 percent – is
flammable, explosive, corrosive or poisonous. About 1 percent – three million packages –
of the hazardous materials shipped annually contains radioactive material, most of them
from medical and industrial applications. [DOT 1998b]
Spent nuclear fuel comprises a very small fraction of the hazardous materials packages

Dear Secretary Chu:
At the direction of the President, you charged the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future with reviewing policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel
cycle and recommending a new plan. We thank you for choosing us to serve as Co-
Chairmen of the Commission and for selecting the talented and dedicated set of
Commissioners with whom we serve.
We have sought to ensure that our review is comprehensive, open and inclusive. The
Commission and its subcommittees have heard from hundreds of individuals and

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's guidance on burnup credit for pressurized-water-reactor (PWR) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) recommends that analyses be based on a cooling time of five years. This recommendation eliminates assemblies with shorter cooling times from cask loading and limits the allowable credit for reactivity reduction associated with cooling time. This report examines reactivity behavior as a function of cooling time to assess the possibility of expanding the current cooling time recommendation for SNF storage and transportation.

Taking credit for the reduced reactivity of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in criticality analyses is referred to as burnup credit (BUC). Criticality safety evaluations require validation of the computational methods with critical experiments that are as similar as possible to the safety analysis models, and for which the keff values are known. This poses a challenge for validation of BUC criticality analyses, as critical experiments with actinide and fission product (FP)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from point of origin to destination at a federal storage or disposal facility. Section 180(c), written into the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987, requires OCRWM to prepare public safety officials along the routes for these shipments.

Dear Representatives Upton and Shimkus,
At the direction of the President, the Secretary of Energy established the Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear Future and charged it with reviewing policies for
managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. We are serving as the Co-Chairmen of
the Commission and have taken note of your recent comments about the Commission’s
work.
Your comments echo those we have heard from several members of Congress and from
people across the country who believe the United States should not abandon the

This analysis is prepared by the Mined Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) Waste Package Development Department (WPDD) to provide pressurized water reactor (PWR) isotopic composition data as a function of time for use in criticality analyses. The objectives of this evaluation are to generate burnup and decay dependant isotopic inventories and to provide these inventories in a form which can easily be utilized in subsequent criticality calculations.

The issue of interim storage of used (spent)1 fuel is dependent on a number of key factors, some
of which are not known at this time but are the subject of this study. The first is whether or not
the Yucca Mountain Project continues or is cancelled such that it may be able to receive spent
fuel from existing and decommissioned nuclear power stations. The second is whether the United
States will pursue a policy of reprocessing and recycling nuclear fuel. The reprocessing and

The "Summary Report of Commercial Reactor Criticality Data for Crystal River Unit 3" contains the detailed information necessary to perform commercial reactor criticality (CRC) analyses for the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR3) reactor.

There has been a substantial resurgence of interest in nuclear power in the United States
over the past few years. One consequence has been a rapid growth in the research
budget of DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE). In light of this growth, the Office of
Management and Budget included within the FY2006 budget request a study by the
National Academy of Sciences to review the NE research programs and recommend
priorities among those programs. The programs to be evaluated were: Nuclear Power

Dear Co-Chairs Hamilton and Scowcroft:
The Obama Administration believes that nuclear energy has an important role to playas America moves to a clean energy future. One of my goals as Secretary of Energy is to help restart America's nuclear industry, creating thousands of new jobs and new export opportunities for the United States while producing the carbon free energy we need to power America's economy.

This report presents studies to assess reactivity margins and loading curves for pressurized water reactor
(PWR) burnup-credit criticality safety evaluations. The studies are based on a generic high-density 32-
assembly cask and systematically vary individual calculational (depletion and criticality) assumptions to
demonstrate the impact on the predicted effective neutron multiplication factor, keff, and burnup-credit
loading curves. The purpose of this report is to provide a greater understanding of the importance of

Past efforts by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and others have provided sufficient technical information to enable the NRC to issue regulatory guidance for implementation of pressurized-water reactor (PWR) burnup credit; however, consideration of only the reactivity change due to the major actinides is recommended in the guidance.

The purpose of this calculation report, Range of Applicability and Bias Determination for Postclosure
Criticality of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, is to validate the computational method used to perform
postclosure criticality calculations. The validation process applies the criticality analysis methodology
approach documented in Section 3.5 of the Disposal Criticality Analysis Methodology Topical Report.1
The application systems for this validation consist of waste packages containing transport, aging, and

Fundamentally, a nuclear energy system uses nuclear fission to create heat, which is then available for generating electricity or other applications, including seawater desalination, heating, and production of other fuels. The nuclear energy system as currently deployed in the United States, Figure 1, consists of a number of integrated components, beginning with the natural resources required for nuclear fuel, followed by fissioning of the fuel in reactors connected to electricity generation facilities, and ending with the disposition of all wastes, including used nuclear fuel (UNF).